Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Please don't delete my photograph of Doctah X. I own the photo, took it with my digital camera. There doesn't seem to be an option for that on the licensing drop down menu. Please advise. Thank you. Karenbellxx ----
The full answer: If you're coming here to ask about an image, it probably was deleted because you forgot to note where you got the image from, or you forgot to indicate the copyright status of the image. See Misplaced Pages:Image use policy for more information on what you need to do when uploading images.
It says that anyone can copy this image. Why is it being deleted?
The image is not under a free license. There are three things that the image creator needs to permit for an image to be under a free license:
They need to permit distribution
They need to permit modification and incorporation into other works (the creation of derivative works)
They need to permit distribution of derivative works
A permission to copy covers #1, but does not permit #2 (which is what lets Misplaced Pages use it in an article), and does not permit #3 (which is what permits us to distribute Misplaced Pages, and what permits people to re-use Misplaced Pages content).
I got permission to use this image in Misplaced Pages. Why is it being deleted?
Simple permission is not good enough. The image owner could revoke permission at any time, and the image can't be reused anywhere else: not in Wiktionary, not in Wikibooks, and possibly not in the other languages Misplaced Pages is available in. It also prevents people from re-using Misplaced Pages content. Misplaced Pages is a free content encyclopedia, so any image should be under a free license. Simple permission fails all three points of what constitutes a free license.
It says that anyone can use this image for noncommercial purposes. Misplaced Pages is non-commercial, so that means it's okay, right?
The Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Misplaced Pages, is registered as a non-profit organization. That doesn't mean it's noncommercial, though: the German Misplaced Pages, for example, sells copies of the encyclopedia on CD-ROM as a fundraising measure. Further, Misplaced Pages is a free content encyclopedia, so any image should be under a free license. Any license with a "no commercial use" clause fails all three points of what constitutes a free license.
It says that anyone can use this image for educational purposes. Misplaced Pages is educational, so that means it's okay, right?
Misplaced Pages articles are intended to educate, yes. But "educational purposes" is a very vague term. The creator of the image could mean that they only want the image to be used by universities and the like, or they might object to Misplaced Pages's coverage of popular culture. It's best to stay away from images with such vague terms.
Further, Misplaced Pages is a free content encyclopedia, so any image should be under a free license. Any license with an "educational use only" clause fails all three points of what constitutes a free license.
The web page I found this image on doesn't say anything about copyright. That means it's free to use, right?
Wrong. In the United States, under the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, every tangible work of creative effort created after March 1, 1989 is automatically copyrighted. Including a copyright statement gives you a stronger position if you file a copyright infringement lawsuit, and you need to register your copyright with the Library of Congress to file the lawsuit, but neither step is needed to get a copyright in the first place.
I found this image on the Internet. Anyone can see it, so that means it's in the public domain, right?
Wrong. Anyone can see a book in a public library, or a painting in an art gallery, but that doesn't mean those are in the public domain. The Internet is no different.
The image was created 50 years ago. It can't possibly still be copyrighted, can it?
Wrong. In the United States, copyright lasts a very long time. As a rule of thumb, everything published in 1929 or later is copyrighted.
I have replaced the image that was removed (owned by the person in the picture) with one that I own myself. The other one was better but I do understand the problem. But kindly do not remove this one.
Mukkhuu (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Re-Upload of Shaw2010 image file
The image file includes all the necessary author, source, and usage/copyright information. Please do not delete this image again.
An image of Mark Noyce has been removed (confused poker player) even though an email was sent by Ryan Jarvis (owner of the photo) giving his approval for it to be used as requested by Misplaced Pages. Can you please explain?
Many thanks in advance.
Hi, many thanks for your reply. The email was sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org by Ryan Jarvis of Ryan Jarvis Photography on 14th May at 18:34.
Removal of images on Paenibacillus page, 31 Jan 11
Two images were removed from the page, although our lab owns the photos and I believe we have stated the image rights as requested. Please correct me if we didn't do it properly and we will amend it accordingly.
Thank you! Paenigenome (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Removal of image on Andrew McGibbon page, 20 Jan 10
A fully approved image of Andrew McGibbon was removed from his page this morning without discussion, despite my providing a full and detailed explanation in the image data of the copyright situation. This I wrote after spending a long period of time hunting through regulations, which I believe I cited correctly. The text also asked that I should be contacted with a week's notice to dispute the problem if there was an issue, which had already happened after I initially loaded the image without explanation. I had assumed the situation was resolved.
It's hard to say now what this explanatory text read like as it has also been deleted, again without discussion. Andrew owns the copyright to the image via his company Curtains for Radio, and he supplied a high resolution copy for specific use here. It was his request that it was used. This was all stated. Was this explanation ever read by the bot? Iangreaves (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
It isn't free content. Simple permission for use on Misplaced Pages (which is what it seems you have) isn't good enough. For an image to be considered free content, the copyright holder needs to permit everyone to copy the image, modify the image however they please, and distribute modified copies. Permission for use on Misplaced Pages meets none of those points.
It doesn't meet our non-free content rules. Non-free images (such as the one under discussion) cannot be used on Misplaced Pages if it is possible for a free-content image to be found or created.
Stu Thomsen Image removal response from bot creator
I post this here incase you don't come by my talk page again and I think my response to you should be of note to others who use images of live persons to illustrate "their" pages (I know they are not "their" pages, but if you work on something long and hard enough possessive human nature kicks in even if you know better):
The image in Stu Thomsen was removed because, since the subject is still alive, it is reasonable to expect that a free-licensed image could be found or made. --Carnildo (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, if that be the case then simplify the licensing to simply reflect that if the subject is alive then only free license images made of the subject by you, the subject him/herself, or a third party is allowed. No more of the confusing "legalese" of "fair use" if instance of the application of "fair use" of a living person's image is in all practical purposes is nil (in this case the guy isn't famous outside of BMX circles). It will only serve to piss people off otherwise who think they met all the listed criteria only to be shot down, especially if no explanation is given forehand as to why it is removed. Oh, and also the image depicts the man as he was in 1984, 25 years ago, not today. Hunter2005 (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Why was the Stu Thomsen image removed on August 7?
I read the above and I still don't understand why the image Stu_Thomsen1_Color_headshot_BMXA_Jun84V9N4p39.jpg was removed!! It met all the criteria for fair use. I put down where I got it from, why the image is necessary and for what purpose and how an image of the subject is unavailable generally. Here was the fair use summery:
What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage?
It is cropped and the magazine has been out of print for over 25 years so no foreseable competition is expected.
Is the image a logo, photograph, or box art for the main subject of the article?
Yes the photograph is of the main subject of the article
Is the image being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic?
Yes, the photo identifies the subject of the article.
What purpose does the image serve in the article?
To illustrate the person the topic is about.
If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original? In the case of music samples, has the quality been reduced from the original?
It is a scanned *.jpg image, scanned on a 13 year old commercial consumer scanner. By its nature the photo resolution and quality has been reduced and it was scanned at a lower resolution scale than life size and reduced further to reduce file size.
Photo is most likely by either Bob Osborn, who was the Photographer/Editor/Publisher of Bicycle Motocross Action at the time or his daughter Windy Osborn who was a staff photographer at the magazine.
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Stu Thomsen//en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Carnildotrue
I also indicated the source of the image (magazine) and copyright status form the selection box. I put down the additional explanation that while Stu Thomsen was famous in the BMX community he was totally unknown outside it so no images was available of him.
Can anyone give me a specific reason as to why this particular image was removed? If I understood the reason for the removal I could accept it but these things are yanked with no specific reason given. Yes, you provide a list of common reasons above for removal, but I don't know which one(s) apply in my case so I can avoid it in the future or better explain the justification. Its frustrating. bots maybe understandably convenient given the massive number of images uploaded everyday, but they are also arbitrary and frustrating since they don't give explanations and the reason for the removal maybe unjust.
Now Commons this
It might be a good idea if the ImageRemovalBot were to see if an image has been moved to the Commons on a different name. See these waste-of-time edits which I corrected thus.
The messages you have alerting me about images I have added were taken into consideration and the specific changes were made. Will these messages be removed as I keep on thinking that you still want something more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardya (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I just deleted File:Giggio.jpg since it is a duplicate and has no licensing info. However, OrphanBot made some strange edits, which showed the following:
Yet at no point was this image removed from the indicated page. I checked the history, and this was not vandalism (all 6 edits were indeed from the bot), so I have no idea what could have caused this. Just letting you know. -RunningOnBrains02:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for late response. Thank you for great bot script and I need ImageTaggingBot's, you can send me as email to jayantanth@gamil.com or any other else.- Jayanta Nath12:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The source is available at User:ImageTaggingBot/tagbot.pl. It requires more customization than the other bots: you'll need to fill out the lists of what templates mean what (at the very least, the files "sourcereq.tags" and "nosource.tags"), and you'll need to modify the section that processes {{Information}} templates to handle any similar templates that your wiki is using. --Carnildo (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Centre William Rappard
This is becoming increasingly difficult to understand, and also time-consuming and somehow frustrating. I received the email from Brandon Weeks telling me that "the necessary modifications to our article(s)" have been made (it seems that the message refers both to the article "Centre William Rappard" and all the photos included herein. However the article continues to be invisible and showing the "Possible copyright infringement" notice (which being copyright holders is a bit nasty to read in). Furthermore, now I receive this new notice from OrphanBot about the rights of File:Cwr aerial 1926.jpg. We are the right holders of these material (text and images), and contributing authors of most of it. We followed the process suggested and granted the necessary permissions to publish it. Is there anything else we should do to consider this article published? --Lamerica (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
After an FFD closed as keep and it was endorsed at DRV, deleting this was clearly out of process. Please restore it. Stifle (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
No. The discussion was about deleting it under WP:NFCC #2: respect for commercial use. I speedy-deleted it under CSD F7 and WP:IAR as a clearly replaceable fairuse image. I probably should have tagged it and waited the 48 hours called for by the CSD criteria, but some of the people who close that category of CSD are of the opinion that only images of living people meet the criteria, and I wanted to make sure the image was deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me second the request and suggest you consider bringing it to WP:ANI for review if you insist on leaving it deleted. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The only policy I ignored was the 48-hour delay on speedy-deleting as CSD F7. If you can convince me that there is no reasonable expectation of getting a free-licensed replacement for the image, I'll undelete it. --Carnildo (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I've asked the closer of the DrV to review and figure out what to do here. Given that it just make it through an XfD and DrV I don't think speeding it (and out of process at that) is either called for or wise. Clearly a number of editors, including admins, felt there was no reasonable expectation of getting a free-licensed replacement and going off on your own in the face of that consensus, seems POINTY. I'd ask that you either A) restore, B) bring to ANI, or C) restore and send to IfD. Hobit (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have to make any justification to you. Why? Because basically what you've done is (a) deleted an image before any serious discussion could take place and (b) done so in a manner such that only people who had been aware of the previous discussions would even notice that the image was missing. Then you put the burden of proof on people who want the image back. How exactly do newcomers to the conversation meaningfully contribute if they can't even see the image in question? 72.196.196.187 (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Carnildo. I stumbled upon this controversy because of a note left on Jimbo's talk page. I'm deliberately posting this message before viewing the image or any of the prior/ongoing discussions other than this one. Therefore, I don't yet know who was depicted (as the title isn't jumping out at me) or have an opinion on whether the image is appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
Now, I must state that your above response is quite troubling. While I don't doubt that you've acted in good faith with the intention of defending Misplaced Pages's legal integrity, this really isn't the correct way to go about it (even if your interpretation of copyright law is correct).
You state above that you deleted the image without tagging it and waiting 48 hours because you anticipated that the evaluating administrator might disagree with your assessment and decline to delete the image. My goodness, Carnildo, that's a reason not to speedily delete something! The idea behind speedy deletion is to avoid clogging the system with uncontroversial (among the vast majority of knowledgeable community members) cases, not to push through controversial deletions before anyone can stop them. If there is any reasonable expectation of substantial disagreement (apart from the opinion that a policy shouldn't exist) among members of the community in good standing, don't speedily delete, period. That's what WP:FFD is for. It's possible that an occasional emergency exception might arise, but this clearly was not such an instance.
Whether you realize it or not, you haven't merely bypassed the scrutiny of fellow administrators; you've disrespected the entire community, most of which is unable to view the image and formulate an opinion/argument regarding the deletion's merit or lack thereof (oversight vital to the project's operation). Worst of all, you've invoked WP:IAR (one of our most important policies) as license to ignore not merely rules, but fellow contributors (something that never serves to improve or maintain Misplaced Pages).
As I said, while I'm certain that you have Misplaced Pages's best interests at heart, no matter how this situation ends up (whether the image remains deleted or is restored), your decision to sidestep the standard process will have been far more detrimental to Misplaced Pages than it was helpful (as evidenced by the entirely foreseeable disruption that has resulted thus far). Please consider this now and in the future. Thank you. —David Levy16:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I deleted it right away because I know that some of the administrators who deal with that category use a simple alive=replaceable/dead=irreplaceable criteria for evaluating things. --Carnildo (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Right, you were aware that there are varying interpretations of the policy and that the deletion therefore was not uncontroversial.
Have you sought to reword the policy to eliminate the perceived ambiguity? For the record, I share your interpretation, but I don't condone dismissing other users' good-faith interpretations out of hand (let alone bypassing another policy to avoid giving them the opportunity to even express their dissenting viewpoints). Can we please fix the process instead of sidestepping it? It seems rather obvious that the latter is not helpful overall. —David Levy00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The bot is correct: you didn't provide a copyright tag. Additionally, you aren't the creator of the image. You may have scanned it in to a computer, but the creator is the person who designed the original cover, and copyright on the cover is probably held by the publisher. What you need to do is provide correct source information (at the very least, state who the publisher is) and add the {{Non-free book cover}} tag to the image. --Carnildo (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Whoops
Your bot caught my incomplete job - forgot to select "Album cover" from that dang dropdown box. I'll find the template and fix that. Cheers for your bot keeping me honest, even if it is somewhat annoying to have to go looking for the template. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Bot problems
Carnildo, your bot is tagging image pages as having no copyright holder, when the copyright holder has in fact been added. It has done it to 10 or so of my images this morning. See its talk page. Could you stop it from running, please, until it's fixed? SlimVirgin16:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Pretty impressive: seven people posted complaints on the bot's talkpage, and not one of them provided a diff showing the bot making a mistake. Only one of them managed to provide a link to a mistagged image.
Anyway, I found the problem: the format of the MediaWiki API response was changed last night. I've shut my bots down until I can work out a fix. --Carnildo (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Carnildo, for correcting your bot. My edit on the talk page of your bot was a bit too aggressive, so this is my show of appreciation.Daanschr (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Carnildo. I noticed that OrphanBot's messages to a user informing them of an uploaded file with no source refer specifically to "images". It stood out because in this particular case, the files were audio files, not images. Would it be worth considering genericizing the messages to "file" instead of "image"? Powers14:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It's offline until I get around to fixing the bug the last MediaWiki update introduced, which should be sometime in the next week. --Carnildo (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I need to figure out how to handle moved images. The last time I checked, pages that transclude an image by a redirect don't show up in the "file links" list. --Carnildo (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Macedonia request for comment
Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
This photo was uploaded and then removed from Centre William Rappard on 10 June 2009. After that I obtained from ILO Historical Archives the permission to publish it in Misplaced Pages, as follows. The ILO Archives fully authorizes the WTO to use/reproduce this image for its inclusion in online (WTO website, Misplaced Pages, etc.) outputs. All photos must be attributed to the "ILO Historical Photo Archives". Then I uploaded it again to Wikimedia Commons "Cwr aerial 1926.jpg". Please do not delete it again.--Lamerica (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The authorisation reads: 'The ILO Archives fully authorizes the WTO to use/reproduce the photos sent for its inclusion in online (WTO website, Misplaced Pages, etc.) outputs.' This includes print or online productions by Misplaced Pages readers and of course they are allowed to adapt it to their needs. The authorisation only requests that 'All photos must be attributed to the "ILO Historical Photo Archives."' Thank you, --Lamerica (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Quoting from my talk page "Ugh. I hate that sort of vague permission statement. Without further clarification, I'd interpret it as Misplaced Pages-only, no derivative works. It doesn't, for example, allow me to add a smiley face to the picture, print it out on a poster, and sell the poster. In any case, the GFDL tag you've put on File:Cwr aerial 1926.jpg is clearly incorrect. --Carnildo (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)"
I understand. Could you please be so kind to direct me as to what kind of permission statement would be acceptable for Misplaced Pages and which tag should I put on this file since GFDL is incorrect. Thanks very much for your assistance.--Lamerica (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Quoting from my takl page: "Ideally, the copyright holder (presumably the ILO Archives) would release the image under one of the standard licenses (saying something like "we agree to license this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license"). Failing that, they should make a clear statement allowing the image to be used freely ("we permit anyone to use this image for any purpose, so long as it is attributed to the ILO Historical Photo Archive"). Right now, there's no suitable tag for the image: images that are licensed for Misplaced Pages only or where derivative works are prohibited get deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)"
'The ILO Archives agree to license this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license. All photos must be attributed to the "ILO Historical Photo Archives."'--Lamerica (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Should I do anything else? --Lamerica (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Quoting from my talk page: "Looks good to me. Forward a copy of the email to permissions@wikimedia.org so we've got a permanent record and someone will update the image description page. --Carnildo (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)"
ImageRemovalBot is working its way through the backlog; I still need to find a suitable set of recent uploads to test ImageTaggingBot with. --Carnildo (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Is there any chance that ImageTaggingBot could scan older images too once its running again, not just new uploads? There seem to be quite a number of older images that have no source or license info but which slip through the cracks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll run it against everything from June 15 on forward, but there are a number of issues (vandalism, bad templates, etc.) with running it on older uploads. --Carnildo (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Would checking the page history to see if anyone other than the uploader has edited a page help with the vandalism problem? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
That would take care of the vandalism problem, but there are others. For example, there are several thousand images that wrap their source information in a navbox, rendering it invisible to the bot. I don't know how many similar situations there are, but it's enough that simply having the bot work its way through the upload log would cause widespread havoc. --Carnildo (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Fairfield_Lacrosse.PNG
I have an email from the owner of this image that your BOT deleted. Can you please restore this and I can send in the email granting me permission to post?Stagophile (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Forward the email with a note that the image needs to be restored to permissions@wikimedia.org and somebody there should restore it. --Carnildo (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Armagnac.jpg
Your bot deleted this image despite the fact that I provided the following:
From: richard.ferriere@free.fr
Subject: Re: Armagnac 3-view
Date: May 4, 2009 2:28:55 AM CDT (CA)
To: wzuk1@shaw.ca
Hello,
You are free yo use and modify the drawing to illustrate your paper
Regards
Richard FERRIERE
Mail Original -----
De: "Bill Zuk" <wzuk1@shaw.ca>
À: "richard ferriere" <richard.ferriere@free.fr>
Envoyé: Dimanche 3 Mai 2009 12h27:47 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Berne / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne
Objet: Armagnac 3-view
Dear Richard
I have just written an article on the Sud-Est (SNCASE) SE-2010 Armagnac and wanted to add a 3-view. I located one of the 3-views on the Wings 2.12 website. Using this drawing as a basis, I made a composite drawing. Is it possible to get your approval to use the original drawing on the website for the composite drawing?
Here are the two (illustrations omitted):
Original:
My composite:
Bill ... in my other life, a meek and mild librarian... Zuk
FWiW, Now what? this is quite distressing after all the work that went into researching and illustrating a quite obscure subject... Bzuk (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC).
The image was deleted by User:Drilnoth, and it seems likely that he did so because the email only grants permission for you personally to use the image -- if someone else were to edit the article, they'd be in violation of the license. --Carnildo (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Agris: International Information System for the Agricultural Sciences and Technology
Hello there! May I enquire why the snaoshot of the goodle map representing the Agris network centres has been deleted? Was information provided on the copyright not sufficient? Can it be restored? Your advice and guidance would eb much appreciated! Thanks, Isiaunia (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, always learning something new! Have provisionally used another image although I'll certainly consider one of the blank maps you have suggested. Thanks for your response! Isiaunia (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Centrifugal Force
Carnildo, Before you make your final decision, can you please examine FyzixFighter's reversion of my last edit on centrifugal force. He has got a question to answer. There are a few editors here trying to get me blocked again using old stories from the time that I was previously blocked. There is an issue to be resolved on centrifugal force. I am not pushing unsourced material, despite allegations that I am. The matter needs to be fully investigated before any action is taken. All I can see here is a few editors who I have had nothing to do with, all sabre rattling to get a topic ban on me. And most of them haven't got a clue what the argument is about. They are being led on principally by FyzixFighter and Wolfkeeper who have been my most bitter opponents on the centrifugal force page.
What I'm effectively saying is 'can this matter be properly arbitrated?' I have been wanting administrator intervention for some time. The matter is all on record.
I should add that Wolfkeeper went to administrator Antandrus to alert him about this thread. Antandrus was the administrator who unblocked me the last time. If there was sufficient evidence to block me again, I am willing to look at that evidence and reply to it. But it seems to me that 'previous convictions' are now being stirred up in order to sway the administrator's. Is that a fair strategy? This matter can be resolved by reasoned discussion. And reasoned discussion does not entail the knee jerk reactions of a stream of uninvolved editors who openly admit that they neither know about the topic nor the issues in the conflict. The only thing that has nearly amounted to an edit war recently was the fact that over the last week or so, FyzixFighter reverted just about every single edit that I made, even when it had already been approved or modified by other editors. How can you block somebody for being the victim of that? You need to examine FyzixFighter's last reversion, and you need to check all the consensus issues. It is not fair that Wolfkeeper should have gone to Antandrus and shown him this thread so as to give Antandrus the immediate impression that I have been the sole cause of the problem, and that he therefore made a mistake in unblocking me. That's what you call calumny. Somebody has singled myself and Brews ohare out without justification, and now they are further singling me out and digging up my previous block record. You need to consider all these points before a decision is made. David Tombe (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to request that you let User:CBM take a crack at this. He posted this comment in the AN/I thread earlier: "I will be away for a few days, but I would be willing to attempt to mediate the dispute when I return in the coming week. As I have said I am not involved or even familiar with the dispute at this point, although I am familiar with both WP policy and practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)"
And as I said in the AN/I thread, I don't believe blocking would be appropriate at all. Blocking is a last resort, and is done when there is actual disruption, not just prolonged arguments on an article's talk page. -- Ned Scott06:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carnildo, I've just noticed the ImageRemovalBot stopped working last week. Could you advise whether it's going to be restarted, or whether I should manually remove red links from articles for the last weeek? PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out -- I made a typo while making a minor change to the bot's code, and I hadn't noticed that the bot stopped working. It's running now, and should clear the backlog in a day or so. --Carnildo (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal
As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX₪04:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Odd. I thought I'd sorted out the Unicode bugs years ago. I've shut down the bot until I can figure out what's going on. --Carnildo (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the bug is fixed: something changed between versions 1.35 and 1.38 of the URI::Escape module that caused these problems, so I've rolled back to the older version. The bot is running again, but feel free to block it if it resumes making mistakes. --Carnildo (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
FairuseBot
Is FairuseBot not running any more? Last edit was logged as weeks ago. Is there any particular reason it has stopped? It was doing a great job... J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Shortly after it last ran, the developers implemented image moving, but they didn't do a complete job of it: pages that show an image via a redirect don't show up in the "File Links" section of the image description page (or the corresponding API query), so FairuseBot would see them as orphaned. At the same time, the name on the page isn't the same as the name of the image, so none of my bots is able to remove such an image. Fixing this and properly testing the fix is going to take a significant amount of work: much of the bot code is based around the assumption that an image only has one name. --Carnildo (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to make the bot detect if an image redirect exists to the current image (I think that MediaWiki lists redirects to an image at the bottom of the image description page), and just skip any images which have redirects listed? Then you'd still be able to have your bots work with most images, just not the few renamed while that was possible. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
If you logged the images skipped in this way, I'd be happy to check them manually- that way, we'd get them all :). On a related note- we can move images? How do we do that? J Milburn (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Image moving was enabled for admins for a few weeks, but then disabled again because of some bugs (not entirely up-to-date on it, I wasn't an admin at that point), leaving the functionality only part way done (e.g., use of image redirects aren't detected) :/ Hopefully it will be fixed soon. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to bring up an old subject (Template:Flphoto) that appears quite clear to me, but apparently gave some concern to you and a few other editors in 2007 who decided to delete this template/authorization. I tried to communicate with the lead editor, but he/she appears to be on sabbatical from Misplaced Pages. Since you appear to have made several contributions to the discussion I now come and hope you would entertain my request for reconsideration.
My concern is that Florida State law clearly transfers title to images donated to the Archives with the Archives, not the donor. The Archives are then commanded by law to make the images available to the public, with the only restriction being attribution to the Archives. Would you, now having access to the authorizing law, feel free to reconsider your earlier position to broadly eliminate Archive images from Misplaced Pages? Archives policy then comes from the authorizing statute. Thanks! --Sirberus (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted photo Etyork.jpg
Your bot has deleted a photo for which a perfectly valid public domain rationale exists under the law of the State of Florida. This was done without advance warning or notice, contrary to Wiki protocols (the articles and related talk pages are on my "watch" list). Please restore the photo page and I will post the proper public domain rationale (see below). This photo was from the archives of the University of Florida, an agency of the State of Florida, and is subject to specific public domain rules under the laws of the state of Florida. Here is the public domain rationale, as posted by the University of Florida archivist on other photos related to the university:
"This work was created by a government unit of the state of Florida and is in the public domain under Florida law. Florida's Constitution and its statutes do not permit public records to be copyrighted unless the legislature specifically states they can be. This file is part of the "public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to law or Constitution" (Florida Constitution, § 24) such as a work made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any state, county, district, or other unit of government created or established by law of the State of Florida (definition of public work at Fla. Stat. § 119.011(11)), and does not fall into any of the various categories of works for which the legislature has specifically permitted copyright to be claimed (see, e.g., "§ 24.105(10), Fla. Stat. (2003) ; § 601.101, Fla. Stat. (2003) ; § 1004.23, Fla. Stat. (2002) , § 119.084 ). It is consequently in the public domain according to court interpretation of the Florida Constitution, Article I, § 24(a) and Florida Statutes, § 119.01. See Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 889 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (Findlaw)"
The foregoing paragraph may or may not have been included on the image page that you deleted----we cannot tell because you deleted the image page and no history remains.
The image was deleted by Drilnoth (talk·contribs), the bot simply removed it from the article afterwards. Also the PD rationale is flawed, per § 1004.23, Fla. Stat. (2002) mentioned above, state Universities are one of the exceptions where the the Florida legislature have specifically permitted copyright to be claimed. The deleted image was claimed to be released under the GFDL license by the way, not public domain, and it did not have a source beyond being from the university library so no way to tell if it was created by another state agency and simply stored in the library or created by the university itself. --Sherool(talk)10:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Sherool, you're misreading the statutory language, which does not create the copyright automatically, but permits the university (or other relevant state agency "to secure" (i.e. take affirmative steps) copyrights in particular circumstances. Did you read the cited case? The case makers it clear that the presumption is in favor of no copyright in government documents. These photos were released by the university archivist for Pete's sake. I have to deal with my day job today, but I will return with a lengthier explanation this weekend. You are apparently trying to justify the photo removal after the fact, when no proper advance notice was posted on either of the relevant article or discussion pages.
BTW, what if any notices were posted regarding these issues? Where were the notices posted? Both of the article and associated discussion pages were on my watch list, and a simple review of their history indicates that no notices were ever posted. Is this consistent with Wiki protocols? What notice is required? This apparently high-handed behavior is very disheartening to those of us who are working hard to improve Wiki articles within our projects. Editors are forced to spend time trying to undo something that could have been easily cured instead of working to improve content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, sir. I have alerted my senior editors on WikiProject University of Florida to this issue. I have not checked, but I suspect that we will have a similar problem with other photos that have been released by the university archivist. I would like to see if we can't get a global solution and properly document all of them to your satisfaction and then upload the whole kit and caboodle to WikiCommons. We really want to comply, but we ask for a fair hearing under the applicable state copyright law applicable in Florida. Hopefully, we can work this out in the next 7 days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to view this discussion. Right now, the file is tagged as GFDL. If someone thinks this is true, we need proof. This can be proved either by a link to a website if possible, or an OTRS message stating the file is GFDL. If someone thinks the file is in the public domain, the license needs to be changed. The image was rightly tagged and deleted. With regards to notification, I notified the uploader.--Rockfang (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Rockfang. There may be more than one rationale. This seems to be the typical image copyright issue----the uploader is trying to comply with Wiki copyright protocols but doesn't know here to go for good advice and winds up doing the best he can on his own. FYI, I am not the uploader, just the primary editor who has been working on the related articles. I do not believe that the uploader is a frequent editor. Frankly, I am less concerned about this one crappy photo than I am in gettng the copyright rationales straight for the majority of the UF WikiProject photos. I suspect that many of the photos are subject to the same challenges, and I would hope to attain a near-global solution. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Your bot is crap and "it" and you clearly don't understand copyright. When photos and images are clearly posted with the correct copyright your bot deletes them. I will canvas others to have you banned from Misplaced Pages for vandalism until you cease and desist. I encourage others to review the irresponisble actions of this Wikimoron.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what the bot does before complaining about it. The bot doesn't understand copyright because it doesn't need to: all it understands is "somebody deleted this image, so I need to remove it from articles". --Carnildo (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Brian Dickson.jpg
Could you explain why your bot keeps removing this image from court dress, even though the file itself continues to exist with a rationale attached to it, and has, in fact, never been deleted from the other article, Brian Dickson? fishhead64 (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It's an image description page without an image. It looks like the image was deleted in 2005 by User:TheCoffee (back when image deletion was permanent) for not having a source, the description page was restored in late 2007, and I deleted it a week later when OrphanBot informed me that it had found a description page without an image. --Carnildo (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Carnildo, Abu Torsam has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I am new to wikipedia, & wishes to learn new things. I just sawed up, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Indore&oldid=313476599 . I am currently having watch on this page, your Bot,
ImageRemovalBot did some edits with Pictures there. & i personally feel that the edits were right. I have got some confusions when i visit up several articles, in case of Pictures , weather they are copyrighted &/or Irrelevant. & so I am confused about their Editing. I just wish to know is there any technique by which i can place your Bot on pages which i beleive have got Suspicious images(COPYRIGHTED &/or IRRELEVANT), or put that pages in Check list of your Bot, so that whatever is true(Images) can be checked by your Bot, & edited to its best.Please Assist me. (Abu Torsam19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)).
Request for Participation in Misplaced Pages Research
Carnildo,
Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case.
In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Misplaced Pages community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Misplaced Pages community.
Your bot deleted four images from the article for Tucson, AZ just now. Is there some protocol for the timing of deleting images? If I'd known that these images were scheduled for deletion, I could have gone out and taken similar images myself and uploaded them as replacements, but now I'm not even sure what a couple of them looked like. Is there any way you can provide me with limited resolution pictures so I can approximate them myself? Eegorr (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
DOH! I just realized that your bot only commented out references to deleted images... good work! I will ask my question elsewhere. Thanks. Eegorr (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Rage Against the Machine nude picture
In the archives for Talk:Rage Against the Machine, there was fighting regarding the nude picture. Well, anyway, the consensus was "Keep", and the picture stayed. So, at some point, the picture gets removed (I believe) by some random editor, possibly a moral guardian. Another user tries to put the image back into the article, because it was meant to be there, and this bot of yours removed it. I know it's not your fault; I just wanted to point out that the bot seems to have totally screwed up. Thoughts? --LordNecronus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
If you're referring to File:Ratm.jpg, it was deleted by User:PhilKnight for lacking a fair-use rationale. If you're referring to some other image, please specify which one. In any case, the bot removed the image because the image had been deleted, and the bot was simply performing routine clean-up. --Carnildo (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleting Images
Hello, please talk to me if you have any questions about my images. Please...Please Please Do Not delete images without my permission! If you have an issue with that, I will provide my image address so we can exchange phone numbers and talk about this on the phone. My photos are legitimate and directly from the source. Thank you very much! Modelmanager (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager
Bot's removal of images
It's baffled me for some time now as to why your image removal bot only hides the code for the formatting and caption of a deleted image, rather than just deleting the now redundant html. Is there some reason for this I'm unaware of? I'd seems a bit of a waste of time to go round after your bot cleaning up the residue of its work. --ĦMIESIANIACAL11:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
A number of people have requested that the bot simply hide the code so that they can easily see where an article used to have images, and what those images were about, with an eye towards finding replacements. --Carnildo (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I came here intending to ask that the bot stop leaving the code in the page as well. I can't imagine it really doing any good, but if other people requested it, maybe they actually utilize it. Some guy (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I am wondering why you deleted the image at KLDK-LP. There was a move to delete it, I responded to that posting on the deletion page, no one else argued to counter my POv and now it is gone. Or did I miss something? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! I think there's a problem in this images:
File:Sarah Geronimo Alone.JPG
File:The Other Side of Sarah Geronimo.JPG
File:Sarah Geronimo THE NEXT ONE CONCERT.JPG
File:Sarah Geronimo In Motion1.JPG
I don't understand why you tag this images as violating the copyright? then you delete it! The Images is my own work and shots. If there are other kinds of these pictures in the net, well some pictures may look like the same from the internet, but no! it's my own pictures and copyrights. So it means that I didn't violate any of it!
Sorry for my comment.. Hoping for your reply.--Rars07 (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Please, develop the view your on this discussion. You are a knowledge editor on these waters and I'm expecting something insightful coming from you. Simply stating the image is "ok" according to NFCC is for the mediocre policy-ignorant average editor, not from someone as experienced on image policies like you. Share your wisdom! --Damiens.rf13:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
loving this thread
andyzweb (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
User:Carnildo has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Carnildo's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Carnildo!
Hi, I noticed that you protected Andy Martin (American politician). Im just curious. rather then protect the page so noone can edit it. wouldn't it make more sense to block those edit warring so we can move on with the article? -Tracer9999 (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Burj Khalifa Images
I recently noticed that you removed a ton of images from the Burj Khalifa article. What was the reason for this? I think that seriously hurt the quality of the article.Meteorico (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
It was discovered that the United Arab Emirates didn't have any freedom of panorama provisions in their copyright law, and as a result, pictures of the Burj Khalifa or many other buildings from the area are copyright violations. --Carnildo (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Please would you be so good as to handle this delicately. You appear to have been responsible for the deletion of a picture for which I have the artist's express approval as supplied to Misplaced Pages - please see below for my note to "permissions-en" a few minutes ago and, if you can, please reinstate the photo:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To: permissions-en@wikipedia.org
I wonder if you in Misplaced Pages would be so good as to handle this very delicate matter where 15 young people were killed by an arsonist.
I sent you the attached note for the TWO pictures that were in the Misplaced Pages article: one picture has been removed by someone, despite the artist's express permission to publish (see the attached email from the artist).
The missing picture is the following:
I stuck the numbers on the photo of the picture to identify the individuals killed -- a considerable solace to the families involved. The individuals are numbered in the text to identify them. The original identifications were by one of the mothers of the deceased.
If it is difficult for you to reload the picture, I can reload it on Misplaced Pages and refer to the artist's authority that is attached to this email. Please advise me if you wish me to do this.
Duncan Ogilvie
Original Message-----
From: Duncanogi@aol.com
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 06:18:50 EDT
Subject: Fwd: Childers painting and Misplaced Pages
To: permissions-en@wikipedia.org
CC: jo@jpstudio.com.au
I understand now that I should forward to you the authority of the original artist to publish a photo of a picture on Misplaced Pages.
As you will see from the narrative of the arson attack that killed 15 youngsters this is a very sensitive issue. The families are indebted to the Australian artist Jo Palaitis for the memorial -- which is now available in Misplaced Pages.
Duncan Ogilvie in England (duncanogi in Misplaced Pages)
Original Message-----
From: "Jo Palaitis" <jo@jpstudio.com.au>
To: <Duncanogi@aol.com>
Subject: Childers painting and Misplaced Pages
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:54:40 +1000
Dear Duncan,
Thanks for your contact. Your entry is a very respectful way to give continued support to those who lost loved ones.
As the copyright holder of the 2002 Childers Memorial Portrait entitled 'Taking a Break in the Field' I am happy to authorize the use of an image of this painting in conjunction with your Misplaced Pages text entry.
Please pass on my kind regards to Mary Lewis whom I remember clearly from the unveiling gathering in Childers.
Sincerely,
Josonia Palaitis
Artist
www.jpstudio.com.au
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I reverted this edit of your bot, as there seems to be no reason for the deletion of the image. It seems to have deleted the image from all the articles it is in use in. Surely this is a mistake?. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The image was deleted by User:TheDJ in violation of policy. The subsequent removal of the image from all articles was an unfortunate side effect of this. Reverting the edit was the correct thing to do. --Carnildo (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Carnildo! You are receiving this message because you are on WikiProject Homeschooling's list of members. WikiProject Homeschooling is holding a roll call to identify active members. All members will be listed under "Pending". Please move your name to "Active" or "Inactive" based on your ability or interest in contributing to the project. After two weeks all names still listed under "Pending" will be moved to "Inactive". If you are actively interested in participating, we are in the process of trying to revive the project and would welcome any help. Discussion can be found at the project talk page. Cheers! 21:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Ian Hacking
An picture of Ian Hacking (for the Ian Hacking article) that I personally took, uploaded to Wiki Commons, it was removed without any notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.0.129 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You are being contacted because you have in the past participated in the Valued Picture project. The VPC project is suffering from a chronic lack of participation to the point that the project is at an impasse. A discussion is currently taking place about the future of this project and how to revitalize the project and participation. If you're interested in this project or have an idea of how to improve it please stop by and participate in the discussion.
The bot is functioning correctly. The image has no computer-readable copyright tag, and so the bot correctly marked the image as {{untagged}}. --Carnildo (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
small water fall.jpg
I did not remove the tag from it. Your image tagging bot that was malfunctioning put a tag on it that stated that was no copyright tag on that picture. I put a free art license tag on the image. I removed the tag that said there was no tag because there was clearly a tag. Inka21:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, it was not what i was trying to do. I might of screwed up and removed it when i was editing the page. I uploaded the picture why would i try to do something like that on purpose? Inka00:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
your bot is malfunctioning again PLEASE do something about it. I distributed my picture under attributation license and there is a tag on it, your image tagging bot comes up and says there is no tag. Inka02:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It's because the source is hidden inside a {{navbox}} template. Navboxes are usually used to display inter-page navigation links, so the bot ignores them. If you want the bot to understand your source information, you need to use structured information templates like {{Information}} or {{Non-free use rationale}} rather than navboxes. --Carnildo (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
ImageTaggingBot only understands the {{nobots}} template. If you want, I can add you to the bot's internal list of users to never notify. --Carnildo (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
ImageTaggingBot tags a description page for an Commons
Just thought you'd like to see this edit — the bot tagged a description page for an image on Commons, just after the DYK update bot created the description page with a notice that the image had been featured at DYK. Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
It shouldn't have done that -- the bot should have detected the page as an image description page without an image and skipped over it. I'll look into what went wrong. --Carnildo (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Your bot identified I had no licence on an image I had uploaded. I have done so many I just forgot this time and have now added it. but I found a problem with the infobox in that it would not let me reduce the image to the standard 250px despite having no problems with other infobox's. Any suggestions?? Maybe put a newer infobox?? Thankyou.REVUpminster (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I see you did have ago but it has not worked. I did download the latest infobox and it still did not work in preview so I cancelled it.REVUpminster (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Your bot has left me another message saying that the image I have uploaded, File:Earth-Moon.tiff, needs to contain info on where I got the image. I've left info on the page saying that it is a cropped version of File:Earth-Moon.png which was uploaded by the Commons user Nickshanks. Mr. R00t01:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Carnildo, I added the license tags
Carnildo, I added the license tags to the photo file NDENIS-2.jpg.
I omitted these license tags by mistake, and did not know how to edit them in until you sent me the warning/notice, so your warning helped me to correct the problem.
Could you take a look when you are able, confirm what I told you, and remove your tag?
Thank you for the HELP, because I couldn't figure out how to add the tags once I made the mistake!
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:MysteryOwl.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
Hello. I recently had an image caught by ImageTaggingBot - thanks, I had forgotten to fill out one field, and it was easily fixable. I noticed that the bot's text reads "to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description". Recently Misplaced Pages changed the tabs on pages so that "Edit this page" now simply reads "Edit". Do you think the bot's template should be updated too? It's not terribly important, and the instructions are still understandable, but I thought I would leave you a note just in case. --Culix (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
If you want I can generate a list of all missing images that are being used in the article space, there are about 16k of these. ΔT 02:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Now that the bot's caught up with the deletion log, most of the file redlinks are either from before the bot started operating, or are things that the bot can't remove. --Carnildo (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It already obeys a straight {{nobots}} on a user's talkpage. Handling other forms is more complicated, because it requires loading the full text of the page. The bot does not and will not obey restrictions on articles or image description pages. --Carnildo (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Image removal of files now on Commons
Would it be possible to rewrite the bot slightly, so that when an image has been deleted with a description like "12:48, 9 February 2011 MGA73 (talk | contribs) deleted "File:02717u.jpg" (F8: File available on Wikimedia Commons as File:Mrs. Ocey Snead.jpg)", the bot instead replaces the image with the Commons version? There were bots that replace images before they get deleted, but I don't know if they are still running. Either that, or if the bot would skip these images so that the article editors don't lose track of the image completely. Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja21:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I've modified the bot to ignore all images where the deletion comment begins with "F8:". I'll see what I can do about more sophisticated handling when I've got time. --Carnildo (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed that this message had been added to the Derby Stallion (series) article by FairuseBot. As the message suggests, I checked for the existence of a Fair Use Rationale and found that the image page does have one and that the Use Rationale contained back-links to the article. Now obviously the Rational that is used is quite minimal and it may even be inadequate to fully describe Fair Use, so I'm not saying that the bot was incorrect to recommend that the Use Rationale should be improved, but I was wondering how the bot could have mechanically determined the quality of the Rationale. Is it looking for certain key phrases like "non-commercial" or "free equivalent," or is it looking at the total number of characters used in the Rationale, or was this a false hit that was only coincidentally plausible? -Thibbs (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Relatedly, what happens after FairuseBot makes a recommendation like this? Let's say I thought its assessment was incorrect and so I wrote a reply to contest the auto-generated message, or I simply ignored it. When Fairusebot makes a copyvio determination does it start a timer which triggers the auto-removal of the image if the image's File Page isn't edited before the time expires? Is there always human oversight for the removal of images that FairuseBot determines as failing Fair Use? -Thibbs (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The image had a rationale for the use in Derby Stallion II, but not for the use in Derby Stallion (series). The bot will re-assess the image a week from when it was tagged, and either remove the tag (if a rationale has been provided) or remove the image from Derby Stallion (series) (if no rationale has been provided). The bot doesn't care about the quality of the rationale, only that it can pair a rationale with each article the image is used in. --Carnildo (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, you're right. Sorry to have bothered you about this. I hadn't examined the image's history. Apparently another editor provided a FUR between when FairuseBot tagged it and examined it. Thanks for the reply anyway, though. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
FairuseBot orphaned files
Hi, regarding this tagging of a FU image as orphaned by FairuseBot: The image is still in use via a redirect. I notice you stated the problem with file redirects as a reason for turning off FairuseBot back in 2009. Wass that issue supposed to be fixed in MediaWiki and the file links for that image are just outdated? Or did you enable that part of FairuseBot by mistake? Cheers, Amalthea10:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I thought I'd fixed the bot's handling of file redirects. I've shut off the bot until I can figure out what's going wrong. --Carnildo (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
So you know, I modified User:Carnildo/dispute1 and User:Carnildo/dispute2 with nowiki tags, because it was tagged with a file deletion tag and thus was gumming up the works over at speedy deletion. I have no idea what you want to do with this page from here, but this at least gets it out of categories where it doesn't belong. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I've deleted them. The pages are left over from doing upload patrol five years ago, and there are better deletion templates (and deletion policies) available these days. --Carnildo (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The license status of the image,File:Scottish Deerhound GCH Foxcliffe Hickory Wind
Carnildo, thank you for your notification:
<<Thanks for uploading File:Scottish Deerhound GCH Foxcliffe Hickory Wind BIS Westminster USA 2011 with handler Angela Lloyd.jpg.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)>>
This image is a modified version of the previous with the same title, extension:pdf
The image has been given by the photographer Steve Surfman, as indicated, and was previously appropriately(?)tagged for Open Domain. I find the system complex and cumbersome, and would appreciate some practical assistance if, as it appears, the copyright issue is still not resolved. Thank you--Richard Hawkins (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
did you ever think to ask where? I took that photo myself! it came from my camera so I allow myself to put that picture on this site.
Your procedural keeps on the AfDs
I would like to understand how you came to your decision to administratively close the AfDs regarding the Fraternities and Sororities. Several I commented on with valid reasons for deletion and I would like to understand your reasoning in policy. Should you fail to reverse your actions I will be tacking your administrative overreach to WP:ANI as raising some of those articles for AFD was perfectly just. Hasteur (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm in the process of moving, and the internet service at my new place won't be hooked up until tomorrow morning. --Carnildo (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
-Vandalism
Stop vandalising my work. If a UK image is over 70 years old and has no authorship, it is out of copyright, so I use the correct tag on it. If you do not know what the correct tag is, then check up, but stop using your idiotbot to vandalise my work! I am fed up with wikipedia editors like yourself who do not have a clue coming along every few months and telling me that established wikipedia procedure is wrong and that I need to do something else.(Cyberia3 (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC))
Minor change requested to image tagging bot
Would you be willing to add one blank line above the section header for image tagging bot notifications? It makes it easier to pick out the section in an edit window. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The bot's already coded to do that. Could you point out a case where it didn't, so I can try to figure out what's going wrong? --Carnildo (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding repeated removal, deletion and suppression of the picture of the author
I do not understand why you Carnildointer alii persist in deleting this image. The rights have been verified and approved (wikipedia-permissions) and there is no remaining justification for removal of the photograph from the French as well as the English Misplaced Pages sites. Either way, would you be so kind as to assist me in reestablishing the chain of title and public domain status of the picture, and explain to me that despite the emails and assurances, you refuse to accept that I am not only the author of the picture but the legal representative of its subject. I cannot imagine that such extreme standards are implemented often, even with Misplaced Pages's admirable, if, in this instance at least, overzealous, efforts to respect and enforce international copyright protections. I am close to giving up on this matter, and it would be a terrible shame not to have a good picture of the subject (János Nyíri) of the article(s) on Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages.fr. Thank you.
Hello, Carnildo. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
About the problems with File:Brooklyn bridge under construction small.jpeg...
Unfortunately, and I'm very sorry, but I just found it while searching for it, same as those structures I found:
*US Bank Tower, Los Angeles
*Luxor Las Vegas, Las Vegas
*Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco
*Sydney Harbor Bridge, Sydney
*Tower Bridge, London
*MetLife Building, NYC
*Chrysler Building, NYC
and many others... And again, I'm terribly sorry, but it's the first time I upload photos at Misplaced Pages and I didn't know that it needed to add all those things. Sorry again. steven1098s 9:18 (UTC), June 17, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven1098s (talk • contribs)
Time lag
How fast does User:ImageRemovalBot need to move? For example, when removing deleted images from articles, should it do so immediately after they are deleted, or should it take into consideration active, non-automated, editing by real logged-in users?
For example, if two images are duplicates of each other but the image to be deleted has the title which is wished to be kept, then the unwanted image must be deleted and then the desired image must be moved to the title of the deleted image. This takes far less time than it took me to type the above (click 'delete', type a quick reason, click 'move', type a quick reason) and the image would been back in the article, unless it gets removed from the article by a bot without a stopwatch. Hyacinth (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
ImageRemovalBot runs twice an hour, at 35 and 55 minutes past the hour. If you happen to have deleted an image at one of those times, it'll be removed from the article immediately; otherwise, you've got time to do whatever you need. --Carnildo (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Why
Why the image has been removed since i added the non free rationale and provided the necessary information as it was demanded. Thank you M.A.R 1993 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Note: the copyright for Googlematrixcambridge2006.jpg was given by the owner D.Shepelyansky
and the image was restored at the article "Google matrix" Shepelyansky (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Please review this article. I think it covers a non-notable subject, but I am unregistered and thus unable to nominate for deletion. It is written in such a way to sound like she has done important things, but it reeks of self-promotion IMO.
THANKS A LOT The wind or breeze 09:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Fijian Soccer Stadiums
Oh come on Dude? I dont see the problem. On the Fijian Misplaced Pages it said that it was taken by a digital camera. So therefor there is no violation. But then again last time I uploaded a picture of the Fijian National, which i found on a website. But it was also deleted. So how are you ever gonna upload a picture here on wikipedia?
BTW there are 1000 of picture with worse copyright violation here on wikipedia, then some Fijian soccer stadiums picture.
Hit me back :)
Well cant you tell me what to do and what i have to write. English is far away my first language.
Help me upload some Fijian Soccer Stadiums pictures.
Every time i upload some pictures and write the information about them, they always gets deleted.
Help me, which pictures of Fijian Soccer Stadiums can I upload and have the correct free content license.
You can only upload images that the image's creator has released under a free license (see Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags/Free licenses for a list of common free licenses). If the image's creator doesn't explicitly state that the image is under one of those licenses, the image is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages. --Carnildo (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Last one
The image i added last time with a non-free rationale and description but i think you didn't bother to see it. Am i right???? M.A.R 1993 (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Another image removal complaint
I have this complaint about the removal of File:TK_Donaldson_27Oct90_London.JPG which I have restored. Please discuss before future automated removal. The file is licenced as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License with attribution: "Private photo taken-by and owned-by former Alcor Life Extension Foundation President Mike Darwin who sent the photo to me requesting that it be used as the photo for Dr. Donaldson's Misplaced Pages page". Unfortunately, I restored the file without making a proper note of the guy who deleted it, and now there is no history I can find. --Ben Best (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I have provided OTRS ticket no. related to the permission for this image. Please check that. I have undone the removal of link to this image in the article Tirsuli. Please let me know if there is any issue further in publishing this image.
Using User:MiszaBot configurations for archiving posts
I don't think linking archives to your old revisions is a good execution. Would you consider using MiszaBot for archival purposes? I'll help out if you want. --Gh87 (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I archive to history because it prevents the archives from being changed. That way, I don't get things like the edit-warring over CoolCat's signature, or people using sockpuppets to try to remove themselves from my archives. --Carnildo (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
What changes are you suggesting? "Removing deleted image" is exactly what the bot is doing, while the word "image" links to the image in question in a way that makes it easy to see who deleted the image and why. --Carnildo (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, the list is fairly detailed, but in this bot's case the edit summary could be something like.
which, at 447 characters, is far beyond the 250-character limit for edit summaries. That's a fairly mild example, too: institutional uploads can easily be pushing the limit with the filename alone. --Carnildo (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, it might not be possible to fetch the deletion reason (or to easily trim it down to something manageable, like "file was deleted per WP:CSD#F1"). Just make the edit summary as explicit and as helpful as you can, without giving yourself headaches. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
There's no practical way to fit both the deletion reason and a link to the image in the edit summary. A general solution to "trim it down to something manageable" requires natural-language comprehension (ie. it's an AI-complete problem), while a direct link to the log will more than double the length of the summary.
I've changed the wording a bit to (hopefully) make it clearer that the bot isn't deleting images. I can't see how your other suggestions will help: if people aren't reading an FAQ when it's the first thing on the page, and they can't see a big yellow box that's staring them in the face, I don't expect adding a few links to an edit summary will change things. --Carnildo (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The point is to explicitly link and mention the FAQ in the edit summary, because that's the first thing an editor is likely see (on their watchlists, or when browsing the history to figure out what happened). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Bot-edit tag
Could your bot(s) be modified to use the bot-edit tag? Having never worked with a bot, I have no idea how this is done. I just know that this will tag edits listed in the Watchlist like the edits by Lucas-bot, JAnDbot and Helpful Pixie Bot (among others). Thanks... Cbbkr (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Your bot -- User:ImageRemovalBot -- got a little over-excited and deleted some copy in addition to the photograph it intended to delete (which shouldn't have been deleted anyway).
Hi! Thanks for your attention. I’m sorry I’ve uploaded the file (Ugresh.jpg) by mistake. The image’s license status (Creative Commons CC0 1.0, see here) makes it possible to provide the file to the Wikimedia Commons. I’ve done that. Now I don’t know how I can remove the file you’re asking about.--Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
An apparent non justified delete-action
Hi, I uploaded two map I own to the website on wikipedia in english International Society for the History of Medicine. I chose the tag for one map. One in which I was the author, and I was giving my license to anyone from now. On the second congress about map, I was warned, later, cause apparently I had forgotten to choose a tag for the license. I did. And the message disappeared from the website. Now all suddenly that map has been deleted. For I own it , and I can understand is some kind of mistake I will proceed to upload it again, I would rather solve this than upload it with a different file name. Thanks.--Lorne McGregor (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Carnildo, your Image tabbing Bot has placed a flag on this link. I understand the bot absolutely needs to see a tag declaring what kind of copyright an image has. I created and uploaded this image and flag it right away.
Your bot has flagged my imasge, right underneath the copyright tag I placed it in. I've removed it flag twice and placed a note on the image bot page. I'm placing one here as well so you'll understand why I've removed it's tag twice.
thanks
@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Narn (Loyal Bat Squad Member)-@ 18:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The bot is correct: there is no copyright tag. I don't know what tag you're trying to use, but when you applied it, you used "subst:" to insert the tag's source code rather than the tag itself, leaving a mess that the bot is unable to understand. --Carnildo (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Carnildo, I saw your message. There's a tag there asserting that the image is copyleft, and I checked the code for the tag, subst is not in the code, so I'm not sure what your bot is seeing. The tag itself is:
{{imbox
| type = license
| image = ] <br>
| text =
''This work is licensed under the ] system. Free use permitted, all rights reverted. }}''
]
{{free media}}<noinclude>
It's got a tag on it, so the bot's not accurate in this case. I have use the copyleft tag in past on other images I've created and the bot hasn't mentioned those (they're still in the file section. Anyrate, I'm willing to do my part and put in whatever the bot needs, however, I don't believe the bot is acting properly as it's insisting I have no tag on my image, when in fact, I do.
@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Narn (Loyal Bat Squad Member)-@ 11:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I made a slight change on the page. I'll monitor and see if Image tagging bot re-tags it.
What you've got there is not a copyright tag, it's a mass of wikicode that does not create a human-readable license, much less a bot-readable one: "all rights reverted", for example, is a nonsense statement, and copyleft is a philosophy, not a license. I recommend you use one of the standard license tags, such as {{no rights reserved}} or {{Cc-zero}}.
Incidentally, the bot did not stop because of anything you did. Rather, it only monitors newly uploaded images for a certain amount of time. --Carnildo (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Carnildo, check the copyleft page you linked to, it's described as a license. I DID hear you though, you're stating that the bot doesn't recognize the license currently on it... I follow you.
it's DEFINETLY human readable
This work is licensed under the Copyleft system. Free use permitted, all rights reverted.
I just encountered a message by the bot on a talk page, and I wondered — have you ever considered adding a statement to the default message such as "I'm only a bot, so I can't help you myself"? I've seen other bot messages that include such statements. Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, it seems Fastily deleted the redirect at 23:04, 9 October 2011; Your bot properly cleaned up at 00:06, 10 October 2011; Fastily undeleted the redirect at 01:27, 10 October 2011 (leaving no trace of the delete/undelete); I properly notified you at 01:09, 10 October 2011; then Fastily re-deleted it at 04:14, 10 October 2011. A strange sequence of events that made both of us appear wrong to the other.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts though, on whether the bot's commenting out of a file is the best option when a file has been renamed? Ideally, it would spot the renaming and update the filename in the article, but I understand that would take quite a bit more programming and testing. Anyway, sorry to have troubled you and keep up the good work! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
ZScrsh101011.png no copy tag
hi,as you can see here, I put the tag now, which I had forgot to set when I'd uploaded ;
since I new, I wonder I did the right thing,ie. followed the right procedure! Thanks for help--Zappatoromano (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone changed the picture on Zeenat Aman from x to y (illustrative names). Ww2censor added a message saying that y may soon be deleted, which it was. I restored the article to use picture x. Then the bot comes along and removes image x from the article, which was an okay image. How can this be avoided? BollyJeff || talk00:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha, okay sorry for the false alarm. So if Nraxit hadn't re-added the pic, then the bot would not have done anything, right? BollyJeff || talk01:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
A good number of eclipse diagrams have been removed (commented out) after being moved to commons, seemingly due to a delay of some sort, some show up on commons that have been delinked, some not. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk)
It looks like the Bot is being a trouble maker again. Perhaps Commons is being SLOW causing the bot to think the images don't exist? Tom Ruen (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't find anything wrong. I've turned on full-detail logging in the bot, so if it happens in the near future I can look at the log and see exactly why the bot made the decision it did, but I've only got the disk space to do so for a few weeks. --Carnildo (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The file File:Road Trip Adventure.jpg, it tagged it with no source, but it clearly says in the rationale "Screenshot of the application in question." I've removed the tag, can you check it please. kthxbye Puffin21:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Steven Walling and I have been running some A/B tests on common user talk templates (check out our task force for more info), and I was wondering if you'd let us tinker with the warning templates that your bot sends (not in the technical sense, just with the actual content of the warning). Right now we're working with Beetstra and Versageek on some redesigned warnings for XLinkBot and with Kingpin13 on an SDPatrolBot warning test, and since ImageTaggingBot is another bot that hits a huge number of talk pages, it would be awesome if we could test out some different warnings with it.
Let me know what you think – you can catch me on IRC if you hang out there at all (nick:Maryana), or just play talk-page tag. Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Rolling back correct edits by ImageRemovalBot to facilitate correct file linking.
Aloha Carnildo, this is just an FYI. I am just letting you know that I am rolling back edits correctly made by ImageRemovalBot to articles with File:Bernabò e Beatrice Visconti.jpg.jpg. The correct link is File:Bernabò e Beatrice Visconti.jpg and it is easier to reinstate the positioning & labels just by rolling it back & then correcting the link. No reply necessary, & thank you for your bot! Mahalo, Peaceray (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
At File:CNGS layout.jpg, you (sort of) offered to re-create the image if you were provided overhead maps. If that offer was serious, the best images I've been able to find are the ones at CNGS's website, here. There unfortunately isn't a direct overhead map showing the details of CNGS like the one used to create File:Cern-accelerator-complex.svg (the deleted image was a detail rendering of the black pathway in the upper right section of this image, labelled TI8/CNGS/Towards Gran Sasso), but there are at least more 3-d renderings.
That said, while such an image would be appropriate at CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso, it's much less essential to OPERA neutrino anomaly (which is by far the more actively worked-on article), and certainly doesn't need to be in the lede. Maybe the editors there would accept a fifteen-minute peace offering of a map showing the relative locations of CNGS (per the inset on File:Location Large Hadron Collider.PNG) and Gran Sasso (as shown e.g. at File:Parco-Gran Sasso-Posizione.png); it's not at all obvious reading the article that the beam crosses half of Italy. Our articles for both the source (CNGS) and terminus (Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso) of the neutrino beam are geolocated, if you're into that.
Meanwhile, User:Ajoykt is trying to put together a doomed RFC on you. He's been very productive on the OPERA neutrino anomaly article, and it's sad to see him sucked into projectspace in such a negative manner. I've tried to gently steer him towards DRV instead on Talk:OPERA neutrino anomaly; while he'll get thoroughly shot down there, too, at least it's more likely to be on the image's (lack of) merits rather than RFC's usual wikilawyering about proper endorsements and so on. Discouraging either way. It might be productive to explain to him that by "overhead map" you meant an orthographic view, not a satellite map like he interpreted it; but, again, such a map doesn't seem to exist. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
That looks like it'll be enough information for me to make a 3D model from. I'll see what I can do, but as I noted elsewhere, my skills are rather rusty. --Carnildo (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Steven and I have been working on test templates and came up with these alternate versions. We're not completely finished, so please take a look and let us know what you think about the test strategy and the templates themselves – what needs changing, what looks weird, what could be improved? Thanks for your help and for letting us test with your bot! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, stupid us, without checking Special:PrefixIndex/User:OrphanBot we went and created subpages for all the new templates for the test. See the list on the drafts page. We just assumed you didn't want any extra work, so we went ahead. :) Anyway, we made both randomizers (to randomly deliver the tests or the current versions with a switch function) and empty z tracking templates that are inside our versions. Let me know if you want to use ours, or if I should delete them. Happy holidays, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk00:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey,
Thank you for your false postive report found here, you might not be aware but ClueBot uses the rollback tool just like a human would, therefore rolls back a collection of edits by the same user, just like rollback would do if it was pressed by a human rollbacker.
Thanks Rich(MTCD)13:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Unhelpful bot message
It is really nice of ImageTaggingBot to post friendly messages to user talk pages saying “It was really helpful of you to you to upload…”, but it is really unhelpful of it to say “add one of these templates” without giving a clue that the templates are those at WP:ICT and its subpages. Several days ago I left a message about this on the bot’s talk page, but it is still leaving such messages. —teb728tc07:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi teb728, sorry about the confusion. I just fixed the issue. This friendlier version of the template is actually part of a short-term test that Steven Walling and I are running. That particular test template is actually meant to have as few "directives" as possible, in order to put all the focus on going to MCQ and receiving human help... which looked to be successful in this instance :) It's very possible, after all, that just giving newbies a link to a long and cumbersome page full of weird tags will scare them off, but having a human editor walk them through the process and answer their questions won't. By the end of this test, we'll hopefully have some quantitative data to show whether that's true or not. But you're right that it doesn't make much sense to say "these templates" without including the link. Please let me know if you spot any other issues. Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Request for Interview Regarding Misplaced Pages Bots
Greetings Carnildo-
My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a graduate student at the University of Oregon, currently collecting data for my dissertation on Misplaced Pages editors who create and use bots and assisted editing tools, as well as editors involved in the initial and/or ongoing creation of bot policies on Misplaced Pages. As a member of BAG and the bot community, I would very much like to interview you for the project at a time and in a method that is most convenient for you (Gchat, another IM client, Skype, email, telephone, etc.). I am completely flexible and can work with your schedule. The interview will take approximately 30-45 minutes.
My dissertation project has been approved both by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Oregon, and by the Research Committee at the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information on the project on my meta page.
Please let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to hearing from you to set up a time to chat. Thank you very much.
Randall Livingstone, School of Journalism & Communication, University of Oregon
This file should not be speedy deleted as bearing an improper license, because I've the permission of the copyright owner Dr. Agop Manoukian (permission cc-by-nc-nd-3.0). I've the ticket OTRS (2011102010012061) from the Misplaced Pages IT. If you want, I might send you the permission emails by Agop Manoukian and permissions-it@wikimedia.org Many thanks --Da.francesca (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Did you read my deletion explanation? If it's really a historically significant photo as the "keep" voters claim, you should have no trouble writing a few sourced paragraphs about the creation, context, and impact of the photo, in the style of Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or The Blue Marble. I saw no such information anywhere, or even the barest attempt at such. --Carnildo (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
wikimedia.org per the directions at Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Permit. --Carnildo (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey there Carnildo, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Carnildo/sandbox4. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
#Image_copyright_problem_with_File:Derby_Stallion_II_Coverart.png){kind=link}
Template:No copyright information has been nominated for merging with Template:Di-no license. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gh87 (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Steven (WMF)'s talk page. 21:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
